CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sF03B00FD { width:194.96pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 5962/06 Vasile COVALIU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   January 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 January 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 5962/06) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Vasile Covaliu (“the applicant”), on 31 January 2006. The applicant’s son, Mr Mircea Covaliu, informed the Court by a letter of 9 August 2011 that his father had passed away and that he as his father’s legal heir wished to pursue the proceedings. For practical reasons Mr Vasile Covaliu   will continue to be called “the applicant”, although his heir is now regarded as having this status (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, § 1, 28 September 1999). The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgement of 4 September 2000 pronounced by the Botoșani County Court. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own eventual observations and just satisfaction claims. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 25 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 17 January 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 8   March 2013. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta   Deputy Registrar   President